Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2007 Sep 15;120(4):823-837.
doi: 10.1097/01.prs.0000278162.82906.81.

Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments

Andrea L Pusic  1 , Constance M Chen, Stefan Cano, Anne Klassen, Colleen McCarthy, E Dale Collins, Peter G Cordeiro
Affiliations

Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: a systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments

Andrea L Pusic et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. .

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcomes in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery are increasingly important for clinical research endeavors. Traditional surgical outcomes, centered on morbidity and mortality, remain important but are no longer sufficient on their own. Quality of life has become a crucial research topic augmenting traditional concerns focused on complications and survival. Given this, reliable and valid patient questionnaires are essential for aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgeons.

Methods: The authors performed a systematic literature review to identify patient-reported outcome measures developed and validated for use in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery patients. Qualifying instruments were assessed for adherence to international guidelines for health outcomes instrument development and validation.

Results: The authors identified 227 health outcomes questionnaires used in breast surgery studies. After 135 generic instruments, 65 ad hoc instruments, seven oncologic instruments, 11 education questionnaires, and two non-English-language questionnaires were excluded, seven measures remained. Detailed analysis revealed that six of the seven measures had undergone limited development and validation. Only one measure, the Breast-Related Symptoms Questionnaire, demonstrated adequate development and validation in its target population. It had, nevertheless, significant content limitations.

Conclusions: Valid, reliable, and responsive instruments to measure patient-reported outcomes in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery are lacking. To demonstrate the benefits of aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, future research to rigorously develop and validate new cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery-specific instruments is needed.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Cano, S. J., Browne, J. P., and Lamping, D. L. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: Current approaches and future directions. Br. J. Plast. Surg. 57: 1, 2004.
    1. Rowlett, R. English customary weights and measures. In How Many? A Dictionary of Units of Measurement. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2004.
    1. Velanovich, V. Experience with a generic quality of life instrument in a general surgical practice. Int. J. Surg. Investig. 1: 447, 2000.
    1. Middel, B., and van Sonderen, E. Statistical significant change versus relevant or important change in (quasi) experimental design: Some conceptual and methodological problems in estimating magnitude of intervention-related change in health services research. Int. J. Integrated Care 2: 1, 2002.
    1. Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual. Life Res. 11: 193, 2002.

Publication types